Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Reeshma Ramesan, IPS, wife of Sri Anjani Anjan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 1604 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Kumar , Adv. Mr. Gaurav Raj , Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
Judicial orders must follow legal protocols and cannot contain unverified allegations against parties, particularly regarding actions that may harm their professional standing.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 73, 82, and 83 - Quashing of orders - Petitioner, a Superintendent of Police, sought to quash orders for salary stoppage and remarks of manipulation made by Additional Sessions Judge - Court found that judicial orders were passed without proper procedure and notice to the petitioner and quashed these orders as uncalled for. (Paras 10, 16, 18, 19)
(B) Judicial conduct - Court criticized for uncalled remarks implying manipulation without verification - Judicial officers must adhere to legal protocols and cannot accuse parties without basis. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced allegations of failing to produce an absconding convict under her jurisdiction; the court condemned her actions, prompting legal redress.
Findings of Court:
Orders alleging manipulation were quashed; the Court mandated proper steps for execution of warrants.
Issues: Legality of court orders concerning salary stoppage and allegations of manipulation without due verification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to legal protocols by judicial officers and held that harsh actions against the petitioner without notice were unsustainable.
Result: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case background (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioner (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. state objections and positions (Para 9) |
| 4. court's observations on procedural errors (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's ruling on the validity of orders (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. final directive and orders to the trial court (Para 19) |
| 7. concluding remarks and final judgment (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.05.2025 passed in S.T. case no. 147 of 1989, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj has observed that the attempts made by the petitioner is nothing but measure to hoodwink the said court and also observed that the petitioner has manipulated the letter dated 02.02.2025 by endorsing the seal of the P.S. Cyber Commissionerate without any date endorsed thereon along with the purported signatures of its receipt by the said Commissionerate. In this case, further prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in the said case, by learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder, learned court below has passed a direction to stop the salary of the petitioner until further order.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the Superintendent of Police, Palamau. The accused persons of S.T. case no. 147 of 1989 namely Kundan Pandey and Rabin @ Rabindra Pandey were convicted in the said Sessions Trial case under Section 302 / 34 and 307/ 34 of IPC. It appears that convicts filed Cr. Appeal (D.B.) no. 191 of 1990 in this Court but vide judgment dated 19.12.2011 , the said appeal was dismissed and the conviction of the said two convicts were confirmed. The convicts then approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP (Crl.) No. 3888 of 2013 and same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2013. It appears that earlier in the said case, vide order dated 15.04.2024, the salary of the petitioner was ordered to be stopped till further notice by the predecessor judge, who was presiding over the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj and thereafter convict Rabin @ Rabindra Pandey was nabbed and was produced before the court by the Sub –Inspector of Police. The petitioner made an assurance by her letter dated 20.04.2024 that she would produce the absconding convict Kundan Pandey before the court without taking exception as expeditiously as possible. On the basis of the said assurance, the salary was directed to be released by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj vide order dated 23.04.2024. Thereafter, the D.O. letter dated 26.06.2024 was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Palamau by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj and after that, a notice was sent to her, calling upon her to remain personally present in the court on 14.05.2025 along with the execution report of the process issued against the absconding convict –Kundan Pandey under Section 82 /83 of CrPC and the permanent warrant of arrest was issued against the absconding convict –Kundan Pandey. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau directed the SHO, P.S. Manatu to submit the reports as was called for by the learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj. On 14.05.2025, the In-charge, Officer-in-charge of Manatu P.S., and the Officer-in-charge of Tarhasi P.S., which Officer-in-charges have wrongly been described as the SHO in the impugned, appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge –II, Palamau at Daltonganj, along with the letter bearing no. 418 of 2025 dated 14.05.2025. The letter was accompanied with the certificate issued by the vi
